Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)

Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)

+

==Literal sword==

There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context). Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.

There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context). Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.

Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.

Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.

+

+

(The above comment was left by [[User:Stig]].)

+

+

: Of course it's not a literal sword. In context (see {{bible|Matthew 10:32-38}}), it's obviously a metaphor for strife and civil war. I doubt even biblical literalists think {{bible|Matthew 10:34|verse 34}} refers to an actual steel weapon like Excalibur.

+

: As for the "sword of truth" business, I have no idea where you're getting that. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:52, 4 October 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 10:52, 4 October 2008

Image Attribution

The Creative Commons license for the image requires attribution (See Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0). I could not find on Flikr where the author specifies in the manner the attribution to be carried out. I don't know if attribution on the photos page is acceptable. The alternative is to remove the image.
-- Micah 06:29, 22 August 2006 (MST)

The attribution already exists on the main page for the image...what appears in the article is a thumbnail with a link to that page and doesn't have to include the credit. -- Sans Deity 07:18, 22 August 2006 (MST)

I'll take that as executive policy and make future image submission only attribute on the image's main page. Thank you. -- Micah 08:47, 22 August 2006 (MST)

Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- Sans Deity 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)

Literal sword

There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context). Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.

Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.

Of course it's not a literal sword. In context (see Matthew 10:32-38), it's obviously a metaphor for strife and civil war. I doubt even biblical literalists think verse 34 refers to an actual steel weapon like Excalibur.

As for the "sword of truth" business, I have no idea where you're getting that. --Arensb 10:52, 4 October 2008 (CDT)